[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       backhand-users
Subject:    Re: [m_b_users] Keeping backhand transparent
From:       Michael Bull <mbull () uoguelph ! ca>
Date:       2002-03-18 15:55:51
[Download RAW message or body]

At 10:47 AM 18/03/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>On Monday, March 18, 2002, at 10:37 AM, Michael Bull wrote:
>>The other question I had was how backhand works if we want to run another 
>>server on another port.  Ie, we have two "front" machines running web 
>>service on port 80, but I have another machine in the background that can 
>>be backhanded to but needs to use a different port.   As long as apache 
>>is configured on machine #3 correctly, will backhand on the front 
>>machines be able to send to a non-80 port?
>
>It can direct to "backend" servers just fine if the backend server 
>advertises itself as a different port.  However, it is not a trivial task 
>to have two Apache instances on one backend machine and direct to both 
>machines.  When you think about it, it make sense.


Absolutely - what I'm working with is a machine that is already running a 
non-apache process on 80, but has cycles to spare - just would need to be 
on a different port.  I want it to assist the "front end" webservers 
providing the "main" webservice.  Just wanted to be clear that things 
'should' work before I try testing matters.    Thanks again, Theo.

mb.


_______________________________________________
backhand-users mailing list
backhand-users@lists.backhand.org
http://lists.backhand.org/mailman/listinfo/backhand-users
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]